[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Status update
I am surprised that even though I asked specifically for my name to be taken
off of the requirements draft as an author, it still remains. This is not
standard practice in posting a draft, and I again request that my name be
removed as an author.
I will need to read the draft (which is surprising since I am listed as an
author) to find out what you updated in the 01 version in capturing "all the
issues and consensus to date on the list". It was not clear to me that we
did indeed reach consensus.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 11:06 AM
Subject: Status update
I apologize for the long delay. Between my ramping up on my new job and a
number of other standards related activities, I have dropped the ball.
However, we have not been completely idle. Dave Durham and I have completed
a rev of the requirements doc that Dave has kindly been posted to the IETF
We have also gotten approval for a BOF in Pittsburgh that Jeff Case and I
will be co-chairing. An agenda will be sent out shortly. Due to some
logistical issues, we are holding this session on Wednesday morning
concurrent with DiffServ session 2 and MPLS session 1. If it is at all
possible, I will try to get the time changed. However, I am not optimistic.
I would like to emphasis that despite my recent distractions, it is becoming
increasingly apparent that some work in this space is necessary as the
issues associated with the definition of various management related data
structures in DiffServ (MIB, PIB, QoS model, QoS device model, policy MIB
and directory schema) are now leaking into Security, AAA and MPLS.
Finally, since this latest version of the requirements draft captures
(hopefully) all the issues and consensus to date on the list, it is now
appropriate to start discussing the most appropriate language for
representing models. This is planned to be part of the agenda. However, if
people want to provide the list or the chairs with suggestions or
recommendations for a grammar that satisfies the requirements for expressing
the information model as described in this most recent draft, that would be
greatly appreciated. Ideally some early discussion on the list would help
move things along. Less ideally, a list that the chairs compiled from
private emails would also be satisfactory.